NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp miracle:

rwp@1Corinthians:12:10 @{Workings of miracles} (\energmata dunamen\). Workings of powers. Cf. \energn dunameis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:5; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4| where all three words are used (\smeia\, signs, \terata\, wonders, \dunameis\, powers). Some of the miracles were not healings as the blindness on Elymas the sorcerer. {Prophecy} (\prophteia\). Late word from \prophts\ and \prophmi\, to speak forth. Common in papyri. This gift Paul will praise most (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:14|). Not always prediction, but a speaking forth of God's message under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. {Discernings of spirits} (\diakriseis pneumatn\). \Diakrisis\ is old word from \diakrin\ (see strkjv@11:29|) and in N.T. only here; strkjv@Romans:14:1; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|. A most needed gift to tell whether the gifts were really of the Holy Spirit and supernatural (cf. so-called "gifts" today) or merely strange though natural or even diabolical (1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@1John:4:1f.|). {Divers kinds of tongues} (\gen glssn\). No word for "divers" in the Greek. There has arisen a great deal of confusion concerning the gift of tongues as found in Corinth. They prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, \gen\) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker (14:4|) and was intelligible to God (14:2,28|). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13|): It was not mere gibberish or jargon like the modern "tongues," but in a real language that could be understood by one familiar with that tongue as was seen on the great Day of Pentecost when people who spoke different languages were present. In Corinth, where no such variety of people existed, it required an interpreter to explain the tongue to those who knew it not. Hence Paul placed this gift lowest of all. It created wonder, but did little real good. This is the error of the Irvingites and others who have tried to reproduce this early gift of the Holy Spirit which was clearly for a special emergency and which was not designed to help spread the gospel among men. See on ¯Acts:2:13-21; strkjv@10:44-46; strkjv@19:6|. {The interpretation of tongues} (\hermneia glssn\). Old word, here only and strkjv@14:26| in N.T., from \hermneu\ from \Herms\ (the god of speech). Cf. on \diermneu\ in strkjv@Luke:24:27; strkjv@Acts:9:36|. In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to some one to interpret it if any one was to receive benefit from it.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:28 @{God hath set some} (\hous men etheto ho theos\). See verse 18| for \etheto ho theos\. Note middle voice (for his own use). Paul begins as if he means to say \hous men apostolous, hous de prophtas\ (some apostles, some prophets), but he changes the construction and has no \hous de\, but instead \prton, deuteron, epeita\ (first, second, then, etc.). {In the church} (\en ti ekklsii\). The general sense of \ekklsia\ as in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| and later in strkjv@Colossians:1:18,24; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23,32; strkjv@Hebrews:12:23|. See list also in strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|. See on ¯Matthew:10:2| for \apostolous\, the official title given the twelve by Jesus, and claimed by Paul though not one of the twelve. {Prophets} (\prophtas\). For-speakers for God and Christ. See the list of prophets and teachers in strkjv@Acts:13:1| with Barnabas first and Saul last. Prophets are needed today if men will let God's Spirit use them, men moved to utter the deep things of God. {Teachers} (\didaskalous\). Old word from \didask\, to teach. Used to the Baptist (Luke:3:12|), to Jesus (John:3:10; strkjv@13:13|), and of Paul by himself along with \apostolos\ (1Timothy:2:7|). It is a calamity when the preacher is no longer a teacher, but only an exhorter. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|. {Then miracles} (\epeita dunameis\). Here a change is made from the concrete to the abstract. See the reverse in strkjv@Romans:12:7|. See these words (\dunameis, iamtn, glssn\) in verses 9,10| with \glssn\, last again. But these two new terms (helps, governments). {Helps} (\antilmpseis\). Old word, from \antilambanomai\, to lay hold of. In LXX, common in papyri, here only in N.T. Probably refers to the work of the deacons, help rendered to the poor and the sick. {Governments} (\kubernseis\). Old word from \kuberna\ (cf. \Kubernts\ in strkjv@Acts:27:11|) like Latin _gubernare_, our govern. Songs:a governing. Probably Paul has in mind bishops (\episcopoi\) or elders (\presbuteroi\), the outstanding leaders (\hoi proistamenoi\ in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12; strkjv@Romans:12:8|; \hoi hgoumenoi\ in strkjv@Acts:15:22; strkjv@Hebrews:13:7,17,24|). Curiously enough, these two offices (pastors and deacons) which are not named specifically are the two that survive today. See strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| for both officers.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:12 @{Is preached} (\krussetai\). Personal use of the verb, Christ is preached. {How say some among you?} (\ps legousin en humin tines?\). The question springs naturally from the proof of the fact of the resurrection of Christ (verses 1-11|) and the continual preaching which Paul here assumes by condition of the first class (\ei--krussetai\). There were sceptics in Corinth, possibly in the church, who denied the resurrection of dead people just as some men today deny that miracles happen or ever did happen. Paul's answer is the resurrection of Christ as a fact. It all turns on this fact.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:35 @{But some one will say} (\alla erei tis\). Paul knows what the sceptics were saying. He is a master at putting the standpoint of the imaginary adversary. {How} (\ps\). This is still the great objection to the resurrection of our bodies. Granted that Jesus rose from the dead, for the sake of argument, these sceptics refuse to believe in the possibility of our resurrection. It is the attitude of Matthew Arnold who said, "Miracles do not happen." Scientifically we know the "how" of few things. Paul has an astounding answer to this objection. Death itself is the way of resurrection as in the death of the seed for the new plant (verses 36f.|). {With what manner of body} (\poii smati\). This is the second question which makes plainer the difficulty of the first. The first body perishes. Will that body be raised? Paul treats this problem more at length (verses 38-54|) and by analogy of nature (Cf. Butler's famous _Analogy_). It is a spiritual, not a natural, body that is raised. \Sma\ here is an organism. {Flesh} (\sarx\) is the \sma\ for the natural man, but there is spiritual (\pneumatikon\) \sma\ for the resurrection.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:5 @{How that} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here means "because" (\quia\) as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:14; strkjv@Romans:8:27| or declarative \hoti\ "how that," knowing the circumstances of your election (Lightfoot) or explanatory, as in strkjv@Acts:16:3; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:3f.; strkjv@Romans:13:11|. {Our gospel} (\to euaggelion hmn\). The gospel (see on ¯Matthew:4:23; strkjv@Mark:1:1,15| for \euaggelion\) which we preach, Paul's phrase also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:3; strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@2Timothy:2:8|. Paul had a definite, clear-cut message of grace that he preached everywhere including Thessalonica. This message is to be interpreted in the light of Paul's own sermons in Acts and Epistles, not by reading backward into them the later perversions of Gnostics and sacramentarians. This very word was later applied to the books about Jesus, but Paul is not so using the term here or anywhere else. In its origin Paul's gospel is of God (1Thessalonians:2:2,8,9|), in its substance it is Christ's (3:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8|), and Paul is only the bearer of it (1Thessalonians:2:4,9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14|) as Milligan points out. Paul and his associates have been entrusted with this gospel (1Thessalonians:2:4|) and preach it (Galatians:2:2|). Elsewhere Paul calls it God's gospel (2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@15:16|) or Christs (1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@10:14; strkjv@Galatians:1:7; strkjv@Romans:15:19; strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|). In both instances it is the subjective genitive. {Came unto you} (\egenth eis hums\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\ in practically same sense as \egeneto\ (second aorist middle indicative as in the late Greek generally). Songs:also \eis hums\ like the _Koin_ is little more than the dative \humin\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 594). {Not only--but also} (\ouk--monon, alla kai\). Sharp contrast, negatively and positively. The contrast between \logos\ (word) and \dunamis\ (power) is seen also in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@4:20|. Paul does not refer to miracles by \dunamis\. {In the Holy Spirit and much assurance} (\en pneumati hagii kai plrophorii polli\). Preposition \en\ repeated with \logi, dunamei\, but only once here thus uniting closely {Holy Spirit} and {much assurance}. No article with either word. The word \plrophorii\ is not found in ancient Greek or the LXX. It appears once in Clement of Rome and one broken papyrus example. For the verb \plrophore\ see on ¯Luke:1:1|. The substantive in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:2; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|. It means the full confidence which comes from the Holy Spirit. {Even as ye know} (\kaths oidate\). Paul appeals to the Thessalonians themselves as witnesses to the character of his preaching and life among them. {What manner of men we showed ourselves toward you} (\hoioi egenthmen humin\). Literally, {What sort of men we became to you}. Qualitative relative \hoioi\ and dative \humin\ and first aorist passive indicative \egenthmen\, (not \metha\, we were). An epexegetical comment with {for your sake} (\di' hums\) added. It was all in their interest and for their advantage, however it may have seemed otherwise at the time.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:21 @{Him who knew no sin} (\ton m gnonta hamartian\). Definite claim by Paul that Jesus did not commit sin, had no personal acquaintance (\m gnonta\, second aorist active participle of \ginsk\) with it. Jesus made this claim for himself (John:8:46|). This statement occurs also in strkjv@1Peter:2:22; strkjv@Hebrews:4:15; strkjv@7:26; strkjv@1John:3:5|. Christ was and is "a moral miracle" (Bernard) and so more than mere man. {He made to be sin} (\hamartian epoisen\). The words "to be" are not in the Greek. "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin." But he knew the contradiction of sinners (Hebrews:12:3|). We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ's suffering on the Cross, but this fact throws some light on the tragic cry of Jesus just before he died: "My God, My God, why didst thou forsake me?" (Matthew:27:46|). {That we might become} (\hina hmeis genmetha\). Note "become." This is God's purpose (\hina\) in what he did and in what Christ did. Thus alone can we obtain God's righteousness (Romans:1:17|).

rwp@2Corinthians:12:12 @{Of an apostle} (\tou apostolou\). "Of the apostle" (definite article). Note the three words here for miracles wrought by Paul (\smeia\, signs, \terata\, wonders, \dunameis\, powers or miracles) as in strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|.

rwp@2Peter:1:16 @{We did not follow} (\ouk exakolouthsantes\). First aorist active participle of \exakolouthe\, late compound verb, to follow out (Polybius, Plutarch, LXX, papyri, inscriptions as of death following for any Gentile in the temple violating the barrier), with emphatic negative \ouk\, "not having followed." See also strkjv@2:2| for this verb. {Cunningly devised fables} (\sesophismenois muthois\). Associative instrumental case of \muthos\ (old term for word, narrative, story, fiction, fable, falsehood). In N.T. only here and the Pastoral Epistles (1Timothy:1:4|, etc.). Perfect passive participle of \sophiz\, old word (from \sophos\), only twice in N.T., in causative sense to make wise (2Timothy:3:15|), to play the sophist, to invent cleverly (here) and so also in the old writers and in the papyri. Some of the false teachers apparently taught that the Gospel miracles were only allegories and not facts (Bigg). Cf. strkjv@2:3| for "feigned words." {When we made known unto you} (\egnrisamen humin\). First aorist active indicative of \gnriz\, to make known unto you. Possibly by Peter himself. {The power and coming} (\tn dunamin kai parousian\). These words can refer (Chase) to the Incarnation, just as is true of \epiphaneia\ in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10| (second coming in strkjv@1Timothy:6:14|), and is true of \parousia\ (2Corinthians:7:6| of Titus). But elsewhere in the N.T. \parousia\ (technical term in the papyri for the coming of a king or other high dignitary), when used of Christ, refers to his second coming (2Peter:3:4,12|). {But we were eye-witnesses} (\all' epoptai genthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \ginomai\, "but having become eye-witnesses." \Epoptai\, old word (from \epopt\ like \epopteu\ in strkjv@1Peter:2:12; strkjv@3:2|), used of those who attained the third or highest degree of initiates in the Eleusinian mysteries (common in the inscriptions). Cf. \autopts\ in strkjv@Luke:1:2|. {Of his majesty} (\ts ekeinou megaleiottos\). Late and rare word (LXX and papyri) from \megaleios\ (Acts:2:11|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:9:43| (of God); strkjv@Acts:19:27| (of Artemis). Peter clearly felt that he and James and John were lifted to the highest stage of initiation at the Transfiguration of Christ. Emphatic \ekeinou\ as in strkjv@2Timothy:2:26|.

rwp@Acts:8:6 @{Gave heed} (\proseichon\). Imperfect active as in verses 10,11|, there with dative of the person (\auti\), here with the dative of the thing (\tois legomenois\). There is an ellipse of \noun\ (mind). They kept on giving heed or holding the mind on the things said by Philip, spell-bound, in a word. {When they heard} (\en ti akouein autous\). Favourite Lukan idiom, \en\ and the locative case of the articlar infinitive with the accusative of general reference "in the hearing as to them." {Which he did} (\ha epoiei\). Imperfect active again, which he kept on doing from time to time. Philip wrought real miracles which upset the schemes of Simon Magus.

rwp@Acts:8:13 @{And Simon also himself believed} (\Hosea:de Simn kai autos episteusen\). Note the same verb in the aorist tense \episteusen\. What did he believe? Evidently that Jesus was this "power of God" not himself (Simon). He saw that the miracles wrought by Philip in the name of Christ were genuine while he knew that his own were frauds. He wanted this power that Philip had to add to his own pretensions. "He was probably half victim of self-delusion, half conscious impostor" (Furneaux). He was determined to get this new "power," but had no sense of personal need of Jesus as Saviour for his sins. Songs:he submitted to baptism (\baptistheis\, first aorist passive participle of \baptiz\), clear proof that baptism does not convey salvation. {He continued with Philip} (\n proskartern ti Philippi\). Periphrastic imperfect of the verb \proskartere\ (see on ¯2:46|). He stuck to Philip (dative case) to find out the secret of his power. {Beholding} (\thern\). Watching the signs and miracles (powers, \dunameis\ that threw his "power" in the shade) as they were wrought (\ginomenas\, present middle participle of \ginomai\). The more he watched the more the wonder grew (\existato\). He had "amazed" (verse 9|) the people by his tricks and he was himself more "amazed" than they by Philip's deeds.

rwp@Acts:12:7 @{Stood by him} (\epest\). Ingressive second aorist active indicative of \ephistmi\, intransitive. This very form occurs in strkjv@Luke:2:9| of the sudden appearance of the angel of the Lord to the shepherds. Page notes that this second aorist of \ephistmi\ occurs seven times in the Gospel of Luke, eight times in the Acts, and nowhere else in the N.T. Note also the same form \apest\ (departed from, from \aphistmi\, stood off from) of the disappearance of the angel in verse 10|. {In the cell} (\en ti oikmati\). Literally, a dwelling place or habitation (from \oike\, to dwell, \oikos\, house), but here not the prison as a whole as in Thucydides, but the room in the prison (cell) where Peter was chained to the two guards. Old word, but only here in the N.T. {He smote Peter on the side} (\pataxas tn pleuran tou Petrou\). More exactly, "smote the side of Peter." Strongly enough to wake Peter up who was sound asleep and yet not rouse the two guards. It was probably between 3 A.M. and 6 A.M., hours when changes in the guards were made. {Rise up} (\anasta\). Short form (_Koin_) of \anastthi\, second aorist active imperative of \anistmi\, intransitive. Songs:also strkjv@Acts:9:11| (Westcott and Hort text); strkjv@Ephesians:5:14|. {Fell off} (\exepesan\). Second aorist active with \a\ ending like first aorist of \expipt\, old verb. This miracle was necessary if Peter was to escape without rousing the two guards.

rwp@Acts:13:12 @{Believed} (\episteusen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative. Renan considers it impossible that a Roman proconsul could be converted by a miracle. But it was the teaching about the Lord (\tou kuriou\, objective genitive) by which he was astonished (\ekplssomenos\, present passive participle of \ekplss\, see on ¯Matthew:7:28|) or struck out as well as by the miracle. The blindness came "immediately" (\paraehrma\) upon the judgment pronounced by Paul. It is possible that Sergius Paulus was converted to Christ without openly identifying himself with the Christians as his baptism is not mentioned as in the case of Cornelius. But, even if he was baptized, he need not have been deposed from his proconsulship as Furneaux and Rackham argue because his office called for "official patronage of idolatrous worship." But that could have been merely perfunctory as it probably was already. He had been a disciple of the Jewish magician, Elymas Barjesus, without losing his position. Imperial persecution against Christianity had not yet begun. Furneaux even suggests that the conversion of a proconsul to Christianity at this stage would have called for mention by the Roman and Greek historians. There is the name Sergia Paullina in a Christian cemetery in Rome which shows that one of his family was a Christian later. One will believe what he wills about Sergius Paulus, but I do not see that Luke leaves him in the category of Simon Magus who "believed" (8:13|) for revenue only.

rwp@Acts:14:9 @{The same} (\houtos\). Just "this one." {Heard} (\kouen\). Imperfect active, was listening to Paul speaking (\lalountos\). Either at the gate or in the market place (17:17|) Paul was preaching to such as would listen or could understand his Greek (_Koin_). Ramsay (_St. Paul the Traveller_, pp. 114, 116) thinks that the cripple was a proselyte. At any rate he may have heard of the miracles wrought at Iconium (verse 3|) and Paul may have spoken of the work of healing wrought by Jesus. This man was "no mendicant pretender," for his history was known from his birth. {Fastening his eyes upon him} (\atenisas auti\). Just as in strkjv@13:9| of Paul and strkjv@1:10| which see. Paul saw a new hope in the man's eyes and face. {He had faith} (\echei pistin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. {To be made whole} (\tou sthnai\). Genitive of articular first aorist passive infinitive (purpose and result combined) of \sz\, to make sound and also to save. Here clearly to make whole or well as in strkjv@Luke:7:50| (cf. strkjv@Acts:3:16; strkjv@4:10|).

rwp@Acts:14:11 @{Lifted up their voice} (\epran tn phnn autn\). First aorist active of \epair\. In their excitement they elevated their voices. {In the speech of Lycaonia} (\Lukaonisti\). Adverb from verb \lukaoniz\, to use the language of Lycaonia found here alone, but formed regularly like \Ebraisti\ (John:5:2|), \Hellnisti\ (Acts:21:37|), \Rmaisti\ (John:19:20|). Paul was speaking in Greek, of course, but the excitement of the crowd over the miracle made them cry out in their native tongue which Paul and Barnabas did not understand. Hence it was not till preparations for offering sacrifice to them had begun that Paul understood the new role in which he and Barnabas were held. {In the likeness of men} (\homoithentes anthrpois\). First aorist passive participle of \homoi\, to liken, with the associative instrumental case. In this primitive state the people hold to the old Graeco-Roman mythology. The story of Baucis and Philemon tells how Jupiter (Zeus) and Mercury (Hermes) visited in human form the neighbouring region of Phrygia (Ovid, _Meta_. VIII. 626). Jupiter (Zeus) had a temple in Lystra.

rwp@Acts:14:19 @{But there came thither Jews from Antioch and Iconium} (\Eplthan de apo Antiocheias kai Ikoniou Ioudaioi\). Came to or upon them, \eplthan\, second aorist (ingressive) indicative of \eperchomai\. Whether news of the miracle had reached those cities we do not know. These may have been travelling grain merchants. At any rate there was an interval in which Paul and Barnabas won some disciples (verse 22|). There would be a natural reaction, even revulsion, in the minds of many who had come so near to worshipping Paul and Barnabas. The pendulum swings easily from one extreme to the other. The hostile Jews from Antioch and Iconium may even have followed Paul and Barnabas along the fine Roman road on purpose to keep them on the run. They had driven them out of Antioch and out of Iconium and now appear at Lystra at an opportune moment for their work. {Having persuaded the multitudes} (\peisantes tous ochlous\). First aorist (effective) active participle of \peith\. They had complete success with many and struck at the psychological moment. {They stoned Paul} (\lithasantes ton Paulon\). First aorist active participle of \lithaz\, late verb from \lithos\ for throwing stones (used by Paul referring to this one incident when alone he was stoned, strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25|). The wounds inflicted may have left some of the scars (\stigmata\) mentioned in strkjv@Galatians:6:17|. They stoned Paul as the chief speaker (Mercury) and passed by Barnabas (Jupiter). It was a Jewish mode of punishment as against Stephen and these Jews knew that Paul was the man that they had to deal with. Hackett notes that the Jews with two exceptions incited the persecutions which Paul endured. The exceptions were in Philippi (16:16-40|) and Ephesus (19:23-41|). {Dragged him out of the city} (\esuron ex ts poles\). They hurled Stephen outside of the city before stoning him (\7:58\). It was a hurried and irregular proceeding, but they were dragging (imperfect active of \sur\, old verb) Paul out now. {Supposing that he were dead} (\nomizontes auton tethnkenai\). Present active participle with infinitive (second perfect active of \thnsk\) in indirect discourse with accusative of general reference. The Jews are jubilant this time with memories of Paul's escape at Antioch and Iconium. The pagan mob feel that they have settled accounts for their narrow escape from worshipping two Jewish renegade preachers. It was a good day's work for them all. Luke does not say that Paul was actually dead.

rwp@Galatians:3:5 @{Supplieth} (\epichorgn\). It is God. See on ¯2Corinthians:9:10| for this present active participle. Cf. strkjv@Phillipians:1:19; strkjv@2Peter:1:5|. {Worketh miracles} (\energn dunameis\). On the word \energe\ see strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:13; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:6|. It is a great word for God's activities (Phillipians:2:13|). "In you" (Lightfoot) is preferable to "among you" for \en humin\ (1Corinthians:13:10; strkjv@Matthew:14:2|). The principal verb for "doeth he it" (\poiei\) is not expressed. Paul repeats the contrast in verse 2| about "works of the law" and "the hearing of faith."

rwp@Hebrews:2:4 @{God also bearing witness with them} (\sunepimarturountos tou theou\). Genitive absolute with the present active participle of the late double compound verb \sunepimarture\, to join (\sun\) in giving additional (\epi\) testimony (\marture\). Here only in N.T., but in Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch. {Both by signs} (\smeiois te kai\) {and wonders} (\kai terasin\) {and by manifold powers} (\kai poikilais dunamesin\) {and by gifts of the Holy Ghost} (\kai pneumatos hagiou merismois\). Instrumental case used with all four items. See strkjv@Acts:2:22| for the three words for miracles in inverse order (powers, wonders, signs). Each word adds an idea about the \erga\ (works) of Christ. \Teras\ (wonder) attracts attention, \dunamis\ (power) shows God's power, \smeion\ reveals the purpose of God in the miracles. For \poikilais\ (manifold, many-coloured) see strkjv@Matthew:4:24; strkjv@James:1:2|. For \merismos\ for distribution (old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|) see strkjv@1Corinthians:12:4-30|. {According to his own will} (\kata tn autou thelsin\). The word \thelsis\ is called a vulgarism by Pollux. The writer is fond of words in \-is\.

rwp@Info_John @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew:23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter strkjv@John:21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).

rwp@John:2:3 @{When the wine failed} (\hustersantos oinou\). Genitive absolute with first aorist active participle of \hustere\, old verb from \husteros\, late or lacking. See same use in strkjv@Mark:10:21|. A longer Western paraphrase occurs in some manuscripts. It was an embarrassing circumstance, especially to Mary, if partly due to the arrival of the seven guests. {They have no wine} (\Oinon ouk echousin\). The statement of the fact was in itself a hint and a request. But why made by the mother of Jesus and why to Jesus? She would not, of course, make it to the host. Mary feels some kind of responsibility and exercises some kind of authority for reasons not known to us. Mary had treasured in her heart the wonders connected with the birth of Jesus (Luke:2:19,51|). The ministry of the Baptist had stirred her hopes afresh. Had she not told Jesus all that she knew before he went to the Jordan to be baptized of John? This group of disciples meant to her that Jesus had begun his Messianic work. Songs:she dares propose the miracle to him.

rwp@John:2:9 @{Tasted} (\egeusato\). First aorist middle indicative of \geuomai\. As it was his function to do. {The water now become wine} (\to hudr oinon gegenmenon\). Accusative case, though the genitive also occurs with \geuomai\. Perfect passive participle of \ginomai\ and \oinon\, predicative accusative. The tablemaster knew nothing of the miracle, "whence it was" (\pothen estin\, indirect question retaining present indicative). The servants knew the source of the water, but not the power that made the wine. {Calleth the bridegroom} (\phnei ton numphion\). As apparently responsible for the supply of the wine ({thou hast kept} \tetrkas\). See strkjv@Matthew:9:15| for \numphios\. When men have drunk freely (\hotan methusthsin\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \methusk\. The verb does not mean that these guests are now drunk, but that this is a common custom to put "the worse" (\ton elass\, the less, the inferior) wine last. It is real wine that is meant by \oinos\ here. Unlike the Baptist Jesus mingled in the social life of the time, was even abused for it (Matthew:11:19; strkjv@Luke:7:34|). But this fact does not mean that today Jesus would approve the modern liquor trade with its damnable influences. The law of love expounded by Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:8-10| and in strkjv@Romans:14,15| teaches modern Christians to be willing gladly to give up what they see causes so many to stumble into sin.

rwp@John:4:45 @{Songs:when} (\hote oun\). Transitional use of \oun\, sequence, not consequence. {Received him} (\edexanto auton\). First aorist middle of \dechomai\, "welcomed him." Jesus had evidently anticipated a quiet arrival. {Having seen} (\herakotes\). Perfect active participle of \hora\. Note \therountes\ in strkjv@2:23| about this very thing at the feast in Jerusalem. The miracles of Jesus at that first passover made a stir. {For they also went} (\kai autoi gar lthon\). The Samaritans did not go and so Jesus was a new figure to them, but the Galileans, as orthodox Jews, did go and so were predisposed in his favour.

rwp@John:4:46 @{Again} (\palin\). A second time. {Unto Cana} (\eis tn Kana\). Note article, "the Cana of Galilee" already mentioned in strkjv@2:1|. {Where he made the water wine} (\hopou epoisen to hudr oinon\). That outstanding first miracle would still be remembered in Cana and would indicate that Jesus had some friends there. {Nobleman} (\basilikos\). One connected with the king (\basileus\), whether by blood or by office. Probably here it is one of the courtiers of Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, Chuzas (Luke:8:3|), Manaen (Acts:13:1|), or some one else. Some of the manuscripts used \basiliskos\, a petty king, a diminutive of \basileus\. {Was sick} (\sthenei\). Imperfect active of \asthene\ (\a\ privative and \sthenos\, without strength, strkjv@Matthew:25:36|), continued sick. {At Capernaum} (\en Kapharnaoum\). Some miles from Cana near where the Jordan enters the Sea of Galilee.

rwp@John:4:47 @{When he heard} (\akousas\). First aorist active participle of \akou\. The news spread rapidly about Jesus. {Was come} (\hkei\). Present active indicative of \hk\, one of the perfective presents, retained in indirect discourse. He had heard the people talk about the miracles in Jerusalem and the first one in Cana. {Went and besought} (\aplthen kai rta\). Ingressive aorist indicative (went off at once) and imperfect active (\rta\, began to beg and kept it up). {That he would come down} (\hina katabi\, \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \katabain\, come down at once) {and heal his son} (\kai iastai autou ton huion\, \hina\ construction, sub-final use or object clause, with first aorist middle subjunctive of \iaomai\, completely heal). {For he was at the point of death} (\mellen gar apothnskein\). Reason (\gar\) for the urgency. Imperfect active of \mell\ with present active infinitive old and common verb for what is about to be and it is used with the infinitive present as here, the aorist infinitive (Revelation:13:16|), or the future infinitive (Acts:11:28|). The idiom is used of the impending death of Jesus (John:11:51; strkjv@12:33; strkjv@18:32|).

rwp@John:5:20 @{Loveth} (\philei\). In strkjv@3:35| we have \agapi\ from \agapa\, evidently one verb expressing as noble a love as the other. Sometimes a distinction (21:17|) is made, but not here, unless \phile\ presents the notion of intimate friendship (\philos\, friend), fellowship, the affectionate side, while \agapa\ (Latin _diligo_) is more the intelligent choice. But John uses both verbs for the mystery of love of the Father for the Son. {Greater works than these} (\meizona toutn erga\). \Toutn\ is ablative case after the comparative \meizona\ (from \megas\, great). John often uses \erga\ for the miracles of Christ (5:36; strkjv@7:3,21; strkjv@10:25,32,38|, etc.). It is the Father who does these works (14:10|). There is more to follow. Even the disciples will surpass what Christ is doing in the extent of the work (14:12|). \Deixei\ is future active indicative of \deiknumi\, to show. See also strkjv@10:32|. {That ye may marvel} (\hina humeis thaumazte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \thaumaz\. Wonder belongs to childhood and to men of knowledge. Modern science has increased the occasion for wonder. Clement of Alexandria has a saying of Jesus: "He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall rest."

rwp@John:6:3 @{Into the mountain} (\eis to oros\). From the level of the Jordan valley up into the high hill on the eastern side. Mark (Mark:6:46|) and Matthew (Matthew:14:23|) mention that after the miracle Jesus went further up into the mountain to pray. {Sat} (\ekathto\). Imperfect middle of \kathmai\, was sitting, a picture of repose.

rwp@John:6:30 @{For a sign} (\smeion\). Predicate accusative, as a sign, with \ti\ (what). As if the sign of the day before was without value. Jesus had said that they did not understand his signs (verse 26|). {That we may see, and believe thee} (\hina idmen kai pisteusmen\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \hora\ and the first aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \pisteu\, "that we may come to see and come to have faith in thee." It is hard to have patience with this superficial and almost sneering mob. {What workest thou?} (\Ti ergazi;\). They not simply depreciate the miracle of the day before, but set up a standard for Jesus.

rwp@John:7:31 @{When the Christ shall come} (\ho Christos hotan elthi\). Proleptic position of \ho Christos\ again as in 27|, but \elthi\ with \hotan\ rather than \erchtai\, calling more attention to the consummation (whenever he does come). {Will he do?} (\m poisei;\). Future active indicative of \poie\ with \m\ (negative answer expected). Jesus had won a large portion of the pilgrims (\ek tou ochlou polloi\) either before this day or during this controversy. The use of \episteusan\ (ingressive aorist active) looks as if many came to believe at this point. These pilgrims had watched closely the proceedings. {Than those which} (\hn\). One must supply the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\ in the ablative case after \pleiona\ (more). Then the neuter plural accusative relative \ha\ (referring to \smeia\ signs) is attracted to the ablative case of the pronominal antecedent \toutn\ (now dropped out). {Hath done} (\epoisen\). First aorist active indicative of \poie\, a timeless constative aorist summing up all the miracles of Jesus so far.

rwp@John:9:39 @{For judgement} (\eis krima\). The Father had sent the Son for this purpose (3:17|). This world (\kosmos\) is not the home of Jesus. The \krima\ (judgement), a word nowhere else in John, is the result of the \krisis\ (sifting) from \krin\, to separate. The Father has turned over this process of sifting (\krisis\) to the Son (5:22|). He is engaged in that very work by this miracle. {They which see not} (\hoi m blepontes\). The spiritually blind as well as the physically blind (Luke:4:18; strkjv@Isaiah:42:18|). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive \blepsin\ (may keep on seeing). This man now sees physically and spiritually. {And that they which see may become blind} (\kai hoi blepontes tuphloi genntai\). Another part of God's purpose, seen in strkjv@Matthew:11:25; strkjv@Luke:10:21|, is the curse on those who blaspheme and reject the Son. Note ingressive aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and predicate nominative. \Hoi blepontes\ are those who profess to see like these Pharisees, but are really blind. Blind guides they were (Matthew:23:16|). Complacent satisfaction with their dim light.

rwp@John:12:1 @{Jesus therefore} (\Isous oun\). Here \oun\ is not causal, but simply copulative and transitional, "and so" (Bernard), as often in John (1:22|, etc.). {Six days before the passover} (\pro hex hmern tou pascha\). This idiom, transposition of \pro\, is like the Latin use of _ante_, but it occurs in the old Doric, in the inscriptions and the papyri. See strkjv@Amos:1:1| for it also (cf. Moulton, _Proleg_., pp. 100ff.; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 621f.). If the crucifixion was on Friday, as seems certain from both John and the Synoptics, then six days before would be the Jewish Sabbath preceding or more probably the Friday afternoon before, since Jesus would most likely arrive before the Sabbath. Probably we are to put together in one scene for the atmosphere strkjv@John:11:55-57; strkjv@John:12:1, 9-11|. {Came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead} (\tlhen eis Bthanian, hopou n Lazaros, hon geiren ek nekrn Isous\). Each phrase explains the preceding. There is no reason for thinking this a gloss as Bernard does. It was a place of danger now after that great miracle and the consequent rage of the Sanhedrin (12:9-11|). The crowd of eager spectators to see both Lazarus and Jesus would only intensify this rage.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as "the first treatise," \ton prton logon\, (Acts:1:1|) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luke:1:3; strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He speaks of himself in both books as "me" (\kamoi\, strkjv@Luke:1:3|) and {I made} (\epoisamn\, strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He refers to himself with others as "we" and "us" as in strkjv@Acts:16:10|, the "we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author's statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: "In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: "They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author's original plan and purpose."

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agaptos\, strkjv@Colossians:4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Acts:28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians (Mark:5:26|) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luke:8:43|).

rwp@Luke:3:15 @{Were in expectation} (\prosdokntos\). Genitive absolute of this striking verb already seen in strkjv@1:21|. {Reasoned} (\dialogizomenn\). Genitive absolute again. John's preaching about the Messiah and the kingdom of God stirred the people deeply and set them to wondering. {Whether haply he were the Christ} (\mpote autos ei ho Christos\). Optative \ei\ in indirect question changed from the indicative in the direct (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1031). John wrought no miracles and was not in David's line and yet he moved people so mightily that they began to suspect that he himself (\autos\) was the Messiah. The Sanhedrin will one day send a formal committee to ask him this direct question (John:1:19|).

rwp@Luke:4:31 @{Came down} (\katlthen\). strkjv@Mark:1:21| has the historical present, {they go into} (\eisporeuontai\). Capernaum (Tell Hum) is now the headquarters of the Galilean ministry, since Nazareth has rejected Jesus. strkjv@Luke:4:31-37| is parallel with strkjv@Mark:1:21-28| which he manifestly uses. It is the first of Christ's miracles which they give. {Was teaching them} (\n didaskn autous\). Periphrastic imperfect. Mark has \edidasken\ first and then \en didaskn\. "Them" here means the people present in the synagogue on the sabbath, construction according to sense as in strkjv@Mark:1:22|.

rwp@Luke:5:17 @{That} (\kai\). Use of \kai\ = \hoti\ (that) like the Hebrew _wav_, though found in Greek also. {He} (\autos\). Luke sometimes has \autos\ in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." {Was teaching} (\n didaskn\). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. {Were sitting by} (\san kathmenoi\). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. {Doctors of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). A compound word formed after analogy of \hierodidaskalos\, but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and strkjv@Acts:5:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (\grammateis\) as in Matthew and Mark (see on ¯Matthew:5:20; strkjv@23:34|) and strkjv@Luke:5:21; strkjv@19:47; strkjv@21:1; strkjv@22:2|. Luke also employs \nomikos\ (one skilled in the law, \nomos\) as in strkjv@10:25|. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on ¯Matthew:3:7,20|. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21| where Luke has separate articles (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in strkjv@Matthew:5:20| or no article as here in verse 17|. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (\hoi san elluthotes\, periphrastic past perfect active, {had come}). {Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem} (\ek pass kms ts Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalm\). Edersheim (_Jewish Social Life_) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that strkjv@John:4:1-4| shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:23|. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. {The power of the Lord was with him to heal} (\dunamis Kuriou n eis to isthai auton\). Songs:the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here \Kuriou\ refers to Jehovah. {Dunamis} (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (\dunameis\). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.

rwp@Luke:6:1 @{On a sabbath} (\en sabbati\). This is the second sabbath on which Jesus is noted by Luke. The first was strkjv@Luke:4:31-41|. There was another in strkjv@John:5:1-47|. There is Western and Syrian (Byzantine) evidence for a very curious reading here which calls this sabbath "secondfirst" (\deuteroprti\). It is undoubtedly spurious, though Westcott and Hort print it in the margin. A possible explanation is that a scribe wrote "first" (\prti\) on the margin because of the sabbath miracle in strkjv@Luke:6:6-11|. Then another scribe recalled strkjv@Luke:4:31| where a sabbath is mentioned and wrote "second" (\deuteri\) also on the margin. Finally a third scribe combined the two in the word \deuteroprti\ that is not found elsewhere. If it were genuine, we should not know what it means. {Plucked} (\etillon\). Imperfect active. They were plucking as they went on through (\diaporeuesthai\). Whether wheat or barley, we do not know, not our "corn" (maize). {Did eat} (\sthion\). Imperfect again. See on ¯Matthew:12:1f.; strkjv@Mark:2:23f.| for the separate acts in supposed violence of the sabbath laws. {Rubbing them in their hands} (\pschontes tais chersin\). Only in Luke and only here in the N.T. This was one of the chief offences. "According to Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, threshing, winnowing, and preparing food all at once" (Plummer). These Pharisees were straining out gnats and swallowing camels! This verb \psch\ is a late one for \psa\, to rub.

rwp@Luke:11:15 @{Dumb} (\kphon\). See on ¯Matthew:9:32|. {By Beelzebub} (\en Beezeboul\). Blasphemous accusation here in Judea as in Galilee (Mark:3:22; strkjv@Matthew:12:24,27|). See on Matthew for discussion of the form of this name and the various items in the sin against the Holy Spirit involved in the charge. It was useless to deny the fact of the miracles. Songs:they were explained as wrought by Satan himself, a most absurd explanation.

rwp@Luke:22:51 @{Suffer us thus far} (\ete hes toutou\). Present active imperative of \ea\, to allow. But the meaning is not clear. If addressed to Peter and the other disciples it means that they are to suffer this much of violence against Jesus. This is probably the idea. If it is addressed to the crowd, it means that they are to excuse Peter for his rash act. {He touched his ear and healed him} (\hapsamenos tou otiou iasato auton\). Whether Jesus picked up the piece of the ear and put it back is not said. He could have healed the wound without that. This miracle of surgery is given alone by Luke.

rwp@Luke:23:8 @{Was exceeding glad} (\echar lian\). Second aorist passive indicative of \chair\, ingressive aorist, became glad. {Of a long time} (\ex hikann chronn\). For this idiom see strkjv@8:27; strkjv@20:9; strkjv@Acts:8:11|). {He hoped} (\lpizen\). Imperfect active. He was still hoping. He had long ago gotten over his fright that Jesus was John the Baptist come to life again (9:7-9|). {Done} (\ginomenon\). Present middle participle. He wanted to see a miracle happening like a stunt of a sleight-of-hand performer.

rwp@Mark:1:22 @{They were astonished} (\exeplssonto\). Pictorial imperfect as in strkjv@Luke:4:32| describing the amazement of the audience, "meaning strictly to strike a person out of his senses by some strong feeling, such as fear, wonder, or even joy" (Gould). {And not as their scribes} (\kai ouch hs hoi grammateis\). strkjv@Luke:4:32| has only "with authority" (\en exousii\). Mark has it "as having authority" (\hs echn exousian\). He struck a note not found by the rabbi. They quoted other rabbis and felt their function to be expounders of the traditions which they made a millstone around the necks of the people. By so doing they set aside the word and will of God by their traditions and petty legalism (Mark:7:9,13|). They were casuists and made false interpretations to prove their punctilious points of external etiquette to the utter neglect of the spiritual reality. The people noticed at once that here was a personality who got his power (authority) direct from God, not from the current scribes. "Mark omits much, and is in many ways a meagre Gospel, but it makes a distinctive contribution to the evangelic history _in showing by a few realistic touches_ (this one of them) _the remarkable personality of Jesus_" (Bruce). See on strkjv@Matthew:7:29| for the like impression made by the Sermon on the Mount where the same language occurs. The chief controversy in Christ's life was with these scribes, the professional teachers of the oral law and mainly Pharisees. At once the people see that Jesus stands apart from the old group. He made a sensation in the best sense of that word. There was a buzz of excitement at the new teacher that was increased by the miracle that followed the sermon.

rwp@Mark:1:27 @{They questioned among themselves} (\sunztein autous\). By look and word. {A new teaching} (\didach kain\). One surprise had followed another this day. The teaching was fresh (\kain\), original as the dew of the morning on the blossoms just blown. That was a novelty in that synagogue where only staid and stilted rabbinical rules had been heretofore droned out. This new teaching charmed the people, but soon will be rated as heresy by the rabbis. And it was with authority (\kat' exousian\). It is not certain whether the phrase is to be taken with "new teaching," "It's new teaching with authority behind it," as Moffatt has it, or with the verb; "with authority commandeth even the unclean spirits" (\kai tois pneumasin tois akathartois epitassei\). The position is equivocal and may be due to the fact that "Mark gives the incoherent and excited remarks of the crowd in this natural form" (Swete). But the most astonishing thing of all is that the demons "obey him" (\hupakouousin auti\). The people were accustomed to the use of magical formulae by the Jewish exorcists (Matthew:12:27; strkjv@Acts:19:13|), but here was something utterly different. Simon Magus could not understand how Simon Peter could do his miracles without some secret trick and even offered to buy it (Acts:8:19|).

rwp@Mark:2:10 @{That ye may know} (\hina eidte\). The scribes could have said either of the alternatives in verse 9| with equal futility. Jesus could say either with equal effectiveness. In fact Jesus chose the harder first, the forgiveness which they could not see. Songs:he now performs the miracle of healing which all could see, that all could know that (the Son of Man, Christ's favourite designation of himself, a claim to be the Messiah in terms that could not be easily attacked) he really had the authority and power (\exousian\) to forgive sins. He has the right and power here on earth to forgive sins, here and now without waiting for the day of judgment. {He saith to the sick of the palsy} (\legei\). This remarkable parenthesis in the middle of the sentence occurs also in strkjv@Matthew:9:6| and strkjv@Luke:5:24|, proof that both Matthew and Luke followed Mark's narrative. It is inconceivable that all three writers should independently have injected the same parenthesis at the same place.

rwp@Mark:6:14 @{Heard} (\kousen\). This tour of Galilee by the disciples in pairs wakened all Galilee, for the name of Jesus thus became known (\phaneron\) or known till even Herod heard of it in the palace. "A palace is late in hearing spiritual news" (Bengel). {Therefore do these powers work in him} (\dia touto energousin hai dunameis en auti\). "A snatch of Herod's theology and philosophy" (Morison). John wrought no miracles (John:10:41|), but if he had risen from the dead perhaps he could. Songs:Herod may have argued. "Herod's superstition and his guilty conscience raised this ghost to plague him" (Gould). Our word _energy_ is this same Greek word here used (\energousin\). It means at work. Miraculous powers were at work in Jesus whatever the explanation. This all agreed, but they differed widely as to his personality, whether Elijah or another of the prophets or John the Baptist. Herod was at first much perplexed (\diporei\, strkjv@Luke:9:7| and strkjv@Mark:6:20|).

rwp@Mark:8:1 @{Had nothing to eat} (\m echontn ti phagsin\). Genitive absolute and plural because \ochlou\ a collective substantive. Not having what to eat (deliberative subjunctive retained in indirect question). The repetition of a nature miracle of feeding four thousand in Decapolis disturbs some modern critics who cannot imagine how Jesus could or would perform another miracle elsewhere so similar to the feeding of the five thousand up near Bethsaida Julias. But both Mark and Matthew give both miracles, distinguish the words for baskets (\kophinos, sphuris\), and both make Jesus later refer to both incidents and use these two words with the same distinction (Mark:8:19f.; strkjv@Matthew:16:9f.|). Surely it is easier to conceive that Jesus wrought two such miracles than to hold that Mark and Matthew have made such a jumble of the whole business.

rwp@Mark:8:12 @{He sighed deeply in his spirit} (\anastenaxas ti pneumati\). The only instance of this compound in the N.T. though in the LXX. The uncompounded form occurs in strkjv@Mark:7:34| and it is common enough. The preposition \ana-\ intensifies the meaning of the verb (perfective use). "The sigh seemed to come, as we say, from the bottom of his heart, the Lord's human spirit was stirred to its depths" (Swete). Jesus resented the settled prejudice of the Pharisees (and now Sadducees also) against him and his work. {There shall no sign be given unto this generation} (\ei dothsetai ti genei tauti smeion\). strkjv@Matthew:16:4| has simply \ou dothsetai\, plain negative with the future passive indicative. Mark has \ei\ instead of \ou\, which is technically a conditional clause with the conclusion unexpressed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1024), really aposiopesis in imitation of the Hebrew use of \im\. This is the only instance in the N.T. except in quotations from the LXX (Hebrews:3:11; strkjv@4:3,5|). It is very common in the LXX. The rabbis were splitting hairs over the miracles of Jesus as having a possible natural explanation (as some critics do today) even if by the power of Beelzebub, and those not of the sky (from heaven) which would be manifested from God. Songs:they put up this fantastic test to Jesus which he deeply resents. strkjv@Matthew:16:4| adds "but the sign of Jonah" mentioned already by Jesus on a previous occasion (Matthew:12:39-41|) at more length and to be mentioned again (Luke:11:32|). But the mention of the sign of Jonah was "an absolute refusal of signs in their sense" (Bruce). And when he did rise from the dead on the third day, the Sanhedrin refused to be convinced (see Acts 3 to 5).

rwp@Mark:8:23 @{Brought him out of the village} (\exnegken auton ex ts kms\). It had been a village, but Philip had enlarged it and made it a town or city (\polis\), though still called a village (verses 23,26|). As in the case of the deaf and dumb demoniac given also alone by Mark (Mark:7:31-37|), so here Jesus observes the utmost secrecy in performing the miracle for reasons not given by Mark. It was the season of retirement and Jesus is making the fourth withdrawal from Galilee. That fact may explain it. The various touches here are of interest also. Jesus led him out by the hand, put spittle on his eyes (using the poetical and _Koin_ papyri word \ommata\ instead of the usual \opthalmous\), and laid his hands upon him, perhaps all this to help the man's faith.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Matthew:7:22 @{Did we not prophesy in thy name?} (\ou ti si onomati eprophteusamen;\). The use of \ou\ in the question expects the affirmative answer. They claim to have prophesied (preached) in Christ's name and to have done many miracles. But Jesus will tear off the sheepskin and lay bare the ravening wolf. "I never knew you" (\oudepote egnn hms\). "I was never acquainted with you" (experimental knowledge). Success, as the world counts it, is not a criterion of one's knowledge of Christ and relation to him. "I will profess unto them" (\homologs autois\), the very word used of profession of Christ before men (Matthew:10:32|). This word Jesus will use for public and open announcement of their doom.

rwp@Matthew:8:27 @{Even the winds and the sea obey him} (\Kai hoi anmoi kai h thalassa auti hupakouousin\). A nature miracle. Even a sudden drop in the wind would not at once calm the sea. "J. Weiss explains that by 'an astonishing coincidence' the storm happened to lull at the moment that Jesus spoke!" (McNeile). Some minds are easily satisfied by their own stupidities.

rwp@Matthew:17:20 @{Little faith} (\oligopistian\). A good translation. It was less than "a grain of mustard seed" (\kokkon sinapes\). See strkjv@13:31| for this phrase. They had no miracle faith. Bruce holds "this mountain" to be the Mount of Transfiguration to which Jesus pointed. Probably so. But it is a parable. Our trouble is always with "this mountain" which confronts our path. Note the form \metaba\ (\meta\ and \bthi\).

rwp@Matthew:17:27 @{Lest we cause them to stumble} (\hina m skandalismen autous\). He does not wish to create the impression that he and the disciples despise the temple and its worship. Aorist tense (punctiliar single act) here, though some MSS. have present subjunctive (linear). "A hook" (\agkistron\). The only example in the N.T. of fishing with a hook. From an unused verb \agkiz\, to angle, and that from \agkos\, a curve (so also \agkal\ the inner curve of the arm, strkjv@Luke:2:38|). {First cometh up} (\ton anabanta prton ichthun\). More correctly, "the first fish that cometh up." {A shekel} (\statra\). Greek stater = four drachmae, enough for two persons to pay the tax. {For me and thee} (\anti emou kai sou\). Common use of \anti\ in commercial transactions, "in exchange for." Here we have a miracle of foreknowledge. Such instances have happened. Some try to get rid of the miracle by calling it a proverb or by saying that Jesus only meant for Peter to sell the fish and thus get the money, a species of nervous anxiety to relieve Christ and the Gospel of Matthew from the miraculous. "All the attempts have been in vain which were made by the older Rationalism to put a non-miraculous meaning into these words" (B. Weiss). It is not stated that Peter actually caught such a fish though that is the natural implication. Why provision is thus only made for Peter along with Jesus we do not know.

rwp@Matthew:27:42 @{He saved others; himself he cannot save} (\allous essen; heauton ou dunatai ssai\). The sarcasm is true, though they do not know its full significance. If he had saved himself now, he could not have saved any one. The paradox is precisely the philosophy of life proclaimed by Jesus himself (Matthew:10:39|). {Let him now come down} (\katabat nun\). Now that he is a condemned criminal nailed to the Cross with the claim of being "the King of Israel" (the Jews) over his head. Their spiteful assertion that they would then believe upon Jesus (\ep' auton\) is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse. When Jesus wrought his greatest miracles, they wanted "a sign from heaven." These "pious scoffers" (Bruce) are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ whose character and power and deity are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the god of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind in heart.

rwp@Matthew:27:52 @{The tombs were opened} (\ta mnmeia aneichthsan\). First aorist passive indicative (double augment). The splitting of the rocks by the earthquake and the opening of tombs can be due to the earthquake. But the raising of the bodies of the dead after the resurrection of Jesus which appeared to many in the holy city puzzles many today who admit the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus. Some would brand all these portents as legends since they appear in Matthew alone. Others would say that "after his resurrection" should read "after their resurrection," but that would make it conflict with Paul's description of Christ as the first fruits of them that sleep (1Corinthians:15:20|). Some say that Jesus released these spirits after his descent into Hades. Songs:it goes. We come back to miracles connected with the birth of Jesus, God's Son coming into the world. If we grant the possibility of such manifestations of God's power, there is little to disturb one here in the story of the death of God's Son.

rwp@Romans:1:4 @{Who was declared} (\tou horisthentos\). Articular participle (first aorist passive) of \horiz\ for which verb see on ¯Luke:22:22; strkjv@Acts:2:23|. He was the Son of God in his preincarnate state (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6|) and still so after his Incarnation (verse 3|, "of the seed of David"), but it was the Resurrection of the dead (\ex anastases nekrn\, the general resurrection implied by that of Christ) that definitely marked Jesus off as God's Son because of his claims about himself as God's Son and his prophecy that he would rise on the third day. This event (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15|) gave God's seal "with power" (\en dunamei\), "in power," declared so in power (2Corinthians:13:4|). The Resurrection of Christ is the miracle of miracles. "The resurrection only declared him to be what he truly was" (Denney). {According to the spirit of holiness} (\kata pneuma hagisuns\). Not the Holy Spirit, but a description of Christ ethically as \kata sarka\ describes him physically (Denney). \Hagisun\ is rare (1Thessalonians:3:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:1| in N.T.), three times in LXX, each time as the attribute of God. "The \pneuma hagisuns\, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity or Divine Personality Resided " (Sanday and Headlam). {Jesus Christ our Lord} (\Isou Christou tou kuriou hmn\). These words gather up the total personality of Jesus (his deity and his humanity).

rwp@Romans:11:15 @{The casting away of them} (\h apobol autn\). Objective genitive (\autn\) with \apobol\, old word from \apoball\, to throw off (Mark:10:50|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:27:22|. {The reconciling of the world} (\katallag kosmou\). See strkjv@5:10f.| for \katallag\ (reconciling). It explains verse 12|. {The receiving} (\h proslmpsis\). Old word from \proslamban\, to take to oneself, only here in N.T. {Life from the dead} (\z ek nekrn\). Already the conversion of Jews had become so difficult. It is like a miracle of grace today, though it does happen. Many think that Paul means that the general resurrection and the end will come when the Jews are converted. Possibly so, but it is by no means certain. His language may be merely figurative.